I started a model and was surprised by the appearance of the torroids as a nested sequence of doubling 'dynamos'. I'm able to see the core BPhoton motion thanks to your Stacked Spin simulator.

The other day, I wrote, "We need the entire set of Sx,Sy,andSz for maximum gyroscopic stability before closing it off as a perfect particle sphere".

The "maximum gyroscopic stability" seems wrong now. I would say maximum gyroscopic freedom. The Sx, Sy, and Sz particles do not have sufficient freedom of motion or 'balance' to become spheres, while the second Sx is rapidly converted to a sphere by simple spin-up. There could be sufficient balance to form spheres with other S combos, but they would not be as stable.

You mentioned the need for balance and this seems like an interesting concept to throw in to the mix. I'm not sure what kind of balance can be achieved given that each spin level doubles the radius of the previous one. Even with just 1 spin-set, the X spin is quite small compared to the Z spin. No matter how many spin levels, above the first axial spin, it will always produce a torus which, in theory, could be axially spun. So, again, why only the Z spin that can have an axial thrown on top of it?

Maybe it is more about mass? Just an X spin will not add much mass but a Y and then a Z spin adds a lot more compared to that X spin. We now have 3 spin levels which are trying to move in each of the spatial dimensions or another way to say that is that the mass is being expressed in 3D. Could it be that 3D motion that allows the next axial spin level to be added?

Spherical BPhoton R=1, Shiny Blue.Sx, Sy and Sz are orthogonal toroids, with each new torus created by end-over-end radius doubling.Sx, R=2, Pink (partially obscured by BPhoton).Sy, R=4, Green.Sz, R=8, Violet.Sx2, a torus, R=16, Lt. Blue is also shown. This position – four spins up from the BPhoton – is actually a spherical A particle.

Now imagine the BPhoton in motion - see Nevyn's Stacked Spin Motion Simulator.

We assume that the center of mass is the center of the torus, but that isn’t true. Instantaneously, the center of mass depends on the position of the BPhoton within the S toroid set (as in the diagram). It is moving as depicted in your simulation, and the particle center of mass is traveling with it. Like a gyro we see that if the spin is fast enough, you can balance it from the toroid center, but as it slows down, a precessional rotation makes it increasingly difficult to balance it on that point. The top level always rotates to broadly face the charge field, orienting its main toroidal axis to the main charge field direction. With its top level spin, Sx (as a horizontal disc), resists tipping forces – it wants to remain horizontal - but there is no resistance to sideways or up/down forces.

The main distinction of Sx is that there is - effectively - no BPhoton (or A) movement above or below the spin plane; it’s sort of just 2D. We see the first 3D BPhoton motion in Sy. Equivalent to mass, BPhoton path complexity increases with each doubling. Of course Sx2 is easily the most ‘spin-dense’ of the S-group. It is most resistant to outside forces as well as the most inertially massive. Note that Sx is the most resistant to tipping forces. Sx2 is the most massive yet least resistant to tipping force - axial spin.

Given the, somewhat strange, axis assignment, this diagram shows a Y (red), Z (green), X (purple) spin set. A spin level rotates around its spin axis so its motion is in the other 2 dimensions. That is, an X spin rotates around the X axis so its motion is in Y and Z.

The big things:

The blue circle does not show an axial spin. It shows another Z spin. An axial spin must have its rotation axis go through the very center of the particle (and by particle I mean all of the inner spin levels). So a true axial spin would have an axis going through the center of the purple torus. This actually shows that the axial spin can not be added because to reach a sphere from the purple spin level, the axial spin axis would need to be the X or Y axis which means it can not go through the hole that the purple spin level has, as that hole is on the Z axis.

I was almost convinced, even though I didn't want to be, but I must respectfully disagree now. A good diagram really helps to see these things.

Last edited by Nevyn on Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typo: I was respectively disagreeing.)

.Nevyn: That diagram is wrong.Amn: Well, I did throw it together, but it’s good enough for discussion. I would hope it’s reparable.

OK, one at a time.

Nevyn: The blue circle does not show an axial spin. It shows another Z spin. Amn: Quoting myself - “Sx2, a torus, R=16, Lt. Blue is also shown. This position – four spins up from the BPhoton – is actually a spherical A particle”. I am assuming Sx2 starts as a torus, in order to justify the A radius doubling. We are discussing how to turn this torus into a sphere. If Sx2 becomes a sphere, I believe its center would most likely coincide with the center of the Sx2 torus.

The first end-over-end spin is by definition Sx, not because it orients to the x-axis. Each of the three toroids are orthogonal to each other. I didn’t give spin directions, so I cannot tell you the +/-,+/-,+/-. The third orthogonal torus is called Sz – regardless of whether it is facing z or not. The coordinate axis in the diagram just shows the lay of the orthogonal directions.

To start, I believe the Sx2 would orient its main torus to the horizontal, like the purple spin in the diagram.

Nevyn: An axial spin must have its rotation axis go through the very center of the particle (and by particle I mean all of the inner spin levels).

Amn: First, I’m still working with a torus. The very center of the particle is the center of the Sx2 torus. Do all the sub particle centers share the same Sx2 torus axis?

Nevyn: wrote:However, my Spin Sim app shows that there is a hole through the center of the particle that the BPhoton never touches (for want of a better word). Could that hole allow the spin axis to go through the center?

Amn: From the first sentence above, I thought we agreed. The second sentence now has new meaning.

I see the BPhoton as spinning through the nested orbits, able to reach the entire volume of the Sx2 torus. None of those BPhoton positions “touch – for lack of a better word” the Sx2 main axis – the hole. Were the torus to become a sphere, would the hole collapse to a single axis piercing every sub particle center? I suspect we’ll just find a hole.

Nevyn: I was almost convinced, even though I didn't want to be, but I must respectively disagree now. A good diagram really helps to see these things.

Amn: Maybe even a bad one can help. Can you either make a better diagram or describe how to change mine? We do seem to approach things very differently. Aside from my atrocious assignments, what would you do different?

Make the case. Why do all the centers align?

Actually, I believe all the particle holes touch. That allows for efficient main axis photon recycling..

LongtimeAirman wrote:Amn: Well, I did throw it together, but it’s good enough for discussion. I would hope it’s reparable.

Yes, it is good enough for discussion but I didn't want other people to come along and read this and think that is how it works. Discussing this stuff is hard enough without adding confusion. I know I am picky with these things but I believe we have to be if we want to get anywhere in our understanding.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The first end-over-end spin is by definition Sx, not because it orients to the x-axis. Each of the three toroids are orthogonal to each other. I didn’t give spin directions, so I cannot tell you the +/-,+/-,+/-. The third orthogonal torus is called Sz – regardless of whether it is facing z or not. The coordinate axis in the diagram just shows the lay of the orthogonal directions.

No, the first spin is not X because we define it that way, it is because it rotates around the X axis or the X has no meaning. The real question to ask is what owns that axis. We are not dealing with a universal coordinate system here, we are working with a single particle and we define the axis relative to that particle. The particle owns the axes. The origin of the coordinate system travels with the particle, with respect to linear velocity, not spin.

Strictly speaking, each spin level has its own coordinate system (or set of axes: X, Y and Z), with the origin of them being at the center of that spin level. Actually, I would say that a spin set owns a coord sys since the X, Y and Z spins are relative to each other. When adding another spin set on top of an existing one, its X, Y and Z axes may point in different directions than the inner spin set but it is easier to keep them all the same while remembering that there are added complexities because the coord systems can be arbitrarily rotated (and arbitrarily translated by a specific distance) with respect to its inner coord systems.

I have said this before but I really need to stress it again. Stacked spins do not produce particles within particles. You can't even think of a spin set as a particle, let alone a spin level. All of the inner spins and the top level spin all work together to produce a given path (and you can add linear velocity to that too). It is a single complex motion formed by many internal motions. There are no internal holes, only the top level spin can have a hole through its center and that hole will always be on the spin axis of that spin level. That is, you must look down the top level spin axis to see the hole. To make a torus into a sphere, the axial spin axis must be in the plane of the other 2 axes.

For example, say we have a top level Z spin. To make that into a sphere, the axial spin must have a rotational axis in the XY plane that passes through the center of the Z spin. To say it another way, the axial spin axis must be orthogonal to its inner spin axis. The result of that is that the axial spin axis can not go through the hole of the Z spin because that hole is only visible from the Z axis, not X or Y. For that reason, I can not see any way to add an axial spin beyond the very first spin level.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Nevyn: I was almost convinced, even though I didn't want to be, but I must respectively disagree now. A good diagram really helps to see these things.

Amn: Maybe even a bad one can help. Can you either make a better diagram or describe how to change mine? We do seem to approach things very differently. Aside from my atrocious assignments, what would you do different?

A diagram has to have a specific purpose and a target audience. If you want to show a rough idea of spins within spins, then your diagram can help but it falls way short of the actual motions. It is a good starting point but should soon be abandoned for a more detailed model once the initial understanding of stacked spins is in place. That more detailed model can not be diagrammed. It has to be modeled which is why I built the Spin Sim in the first place. We need to see the actual motions, not some abstract idea of them.

Our language is a bit lax as well. We are talking about a torus when what we really have is a path that produces a toroidal boundary. That might seem like quibbling but it is very much to the point. When we speak of a torus, most people will imagine a complete object, which is exactly what a torus is. However we do not have that here. We have motions that produce a boundary that resembles a torus. You can't just take that torus and spin it, even with an axial spin. This is because any added motion is integrated into all of the existing motion. It is not just added on top. We don't take the completed torus and then rotate it to produce the sphere, we get a whole new set of motions.

I just tested it in Spin Sim and having a complete first spin set (A, X, Y, Z) and then adding an axial spin on top of that does not even produce a sphere. I tried using an Axial Spin Axis in X, Y and Z and none of them produced a sphere.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Make the case. Why do all the centers align?

The centers do not align. The centers of many individual protons can align and we get proton stacks, but not the centers of spin levels because there are no holes in the internal spins, only the top level spin. To be even more precise, the inner spins do not really exist. Their motions are a part of the top level spin and they are not separable from it. All of them together produce a single motion of the BPhoton which forms the boundary of our particle (I am using a very loose definition of boundary here).

I don't mean to discourage you, quite the opposite. Producing diagrams is a good way to help visualize things but a 2D image is never going to accurately portray a 3D motion, especially very complex motions like what we are discussing. You might get away with simple motions but not stacked spins. They are just too complex for 2D.

After some consideration, I think I made a misleading comment above. I said that a coord sys is owned by a spin set and another spin set added on top of that could have its own coord sys that points in different directions. I don't think this can be the case because the top level Z spin of the inner set is part of the collision to add a new spin level and that new level must be orthogonal to that Z spin. So while it is possible that we get what we call a Y spin on top of a Z spin, the actual directions of X, Y and Z are not different. This leaves us with 1 coord sys for the whole particle, which is nice.

Nevyn wrote:Yes, it is good enough for discussion but I didn't want other people to come along and read this and think that is how it works.

Good. Spin Stacking is a huge hurdle for most people to imagine (see moi!). Even plain old end-over-end spin radius doubling is not something everyone has experienced: Giant swings over the swing bar; jumping hoola hoop instead of rope; …; running on a floating log(?).

Nevyn wrote:We are not dealing with a universal coordinate system here, … . Actually, I would say that a spin set owns a coord sys since the X, Y and Z spins are relative to each other.

The ‘UCS’ on my diagram isn’t even as good as a broken clock, correct only occasionally. In a related effort I’ve been practicing my limits in tracking multiple particles. I agree with all your points on proper thinking in spin/coordinates/axes nested or otherwise. Thanks for your correction earlier today; I speak to the redundant Sz+1, X or Y below.

Nevyn wrote:Producing diagrams is a good way to help visualize things but a 2D image is never going to accurately portray a 3D motion, especially very complex motions like what we are discussing. You might get away with simple motions but not stacked spins. They are just too complex for 2D.

I agree, that’s why I said “Now imagine the BPhoton in motion - see Nevyn's Stacked Spin Motion Simulator”. While the motions are, initially, perhaps unimaginable, I would think a few trips on the amazing Stacked Spin Carnival Ride might clear things up.

Nevyn wrote:Stacked spins do not produce particles within particles. … . It is a single complex motion formed by many internal motions. There are no internal holes, only the top level spin can have a hole through its center and that hole will always be on the spin axis of that spin level. That is, you must look down the top level spin axis to see the hole. To make a torus into a sphere, the axial spin axis must be in the plane of the other 2 axes.

I consider the BPhoton as the only internal ‘particle’. That is when we aren’t talking about charge recycling. The entire spin set, including the BPhoton, is also a ‘particle’ - the nature of which we’re struggling to understand. Turning classical physics on its head, isn’t it amazing that we encounter a spin wave/particle duality inside these so-called ‘particles’? To be specific, perhaps we should only refer to them as charge-particles.

I will make it a habit to always re-orient the top spin level to horizontal, and note when I do not. I’ve consistently thought of the BPhoton path within the spin set as some sort of manifold.

This idea of the center is important. The top spin level center z-hole determines the spin set center. The fact that the BPhoton is never at that point should be proof that the S-particle and the core BPhoton centers cannot be coincident. I suppose I should say the point of end-over-end spinning is to move beyond one’s center.

In addition to the look-down z-hole, I might argue that most of the S particle volume is, of course, empty space. Consider your simulation, depending on your charged-spin-particle settings, the BPhoton is not always free to reach all points within the spin sets in some given amount of time.

I would suggest that there is such a thing as ‘balance’, related to the extents of BPhoton horizontal and vertical travel. The average location of the BPhoton over the long term is the S-particle center z-hole, but there may be a sort of non-center moving center of gravity in the short term. A close and small distribution about the center would indicate balance about the center that could easily tip in any direction away from the z-axis.

Your simulation shows that the Sx ‘manifold’ resembles a 2D ring – with z-hole center, radius 2, and thickness 1. The BPhoton never leaves the spin plane. It clearly must have the strongest gyroscopic stability, for its size, of all charged particles.

Sy, the manifold resembles a torus with radius 4, and thickness 2. The BPhoton now has a vertical component in the top horizontal spin level.

Sz, I don’t know what to call it - a pleasant neck pillow shape? The BPhoton spends the least amount of time in the spin plane.

Sz+1. Nevyn, have you seen an Sz+1 manifold? I realise that Sz+1 breaks the progression, in that a new end-over-end must be either a second X or Y spin. It seems to me that the higher the spin level, the less resulting horizontal gyroscopic stability and increased center balance. Resistance to tangential z-collisions decreases.

Yes, an axial spin requires the spherical axis lie in the horizontal plane, with the z-hole as its center. But I hope you agree that there’s nothing preventing the next tangential vertical collision from giving the Sz+1 a horizontal axis spin by spin-up alone.

Alternatively, the additional X or Y spin on top of Z might introduce a net horizontal axis spin sufficient to convert the Sz+1 to an A. The effect of Y would seem twice as strong as X, given the existing spin set. The net spin and balance factors, were they to exist, might even work together.

Nevyn wrote:I just tested it in Spin Sim and having a complete first spin set (A, X, Y, Z) and then adding an axial spin on top of that does not even produce a sphere. I tried using an Axial Spin Axis in X, Y and Z and none of them produced a sphere.

We want the axial spin on Z+1, with possible redundant/net added spin. What did your test results look like?

Miles said A is a sphere, double the radius of Sz. I believe him. It's around here somewhere..

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed May 18, 2016 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected two typos and removed misplaced quote in line beginning Sz+1. Nevyn.)

There was nothing wrong with your axes assignment, it just isn't the normal way of assigning them, but at least you did put the indicator on the diagram to show it. It took me a lot of time to realise that Miles uses a different assignment to me. I use the standard assignment for graphics programming which is X to the right, Y up and Z into the screen. Miles uses X to the right, Y in or out of the screen (not sure which) and Z up. My major concern was that the description didn't match the diagram.

With respect to the term 'particle', I think physics has really stuffed that word up. I can't really blame them for it, though. They were calling things particles that they thought were particles but we have a different understanding of what is going on so the term becomes difficult to use correctly.

If I was being strict, I would define a particle as an indivisible entity, and so the BPhoton is the only thing that fits that description. However, we are stuck with the baggage of the mainstream and our own learning material we have read over the years and we have to live with it until, hopefully, it all gets resolved into a better nomenclature.

As far as my writings on this site go, I think I have mostly used the term as used by mainstream physics. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc, are all particles and when I need to go below that description I use the term BPhoton to indicate the real particle at the bottom of it all.

Airman wrote:I will make it a habit to always re-orient the top spin level to horizontal, and note when I do not.

I would suggest you pick one you like and stick to it as this removes confusion when looking at multiple diagrams. You want to be able to quickly look at the diagrams and compare them. If you have to reorient the coord systems each time, it makes it really difficult. I may be biased, but I recommend the X-right, Y-up, Z-into screen system if you ever want to do any 3D programming as this is what the 3D APIs will use (at least all of the ones I have used have done so and that spans a few different languages).

Airman wrote:I suppose I should say the point of end-over-end spinning is to move beyond one’s center.

Yes, yes and more yes. As soon as you translate the next spin axis, you are adding an end-over-end spin. The axial spin does not have a translation so its spin axis must intersect the existing spin axis and this is not allowed.

Airman wrote:In addition to the look-down z-hole, I might argue that most of the S particle volume is, of course, empty space. Consider your simulation, depending on your charged-spin-particle settings, the BPhoton is not always free to reach all points within the spin sets in some given amount of time.

Yes, 99.999% empty space at any given instant. The larger you make your dt though, the more space it can occupy in that time. These spins are happening at c, so they are still very fast. Especially the spins closest to the BPhoton as these spins have a very small circumference, which is what c applies to (the distance component of c).

Airman wrote:Your simulation shows that the Sx ‘manifold’ resembles a 2D ring – with z-hole center, radius 2, and thickness 1. The BPhoton never leaves the spin plane. It clearly must have the strongest gyroscopic stability, for its size, of all charged particles.

The top level spin hole is always on the same axis as the spin axis itself. So an X spin will have a hole that is only visible when looking down the X axis. A Y spin will be visible on the Y axis, etc. It is the spin axis that causes the hole because that is what the BPhoton (or inner spin level) is rotating around. Although, to be clear, the first X spin does not really have a hole. It does look like it in the Spin Sim but that is only because the markers are smaller than the BPhoton itself.

Airman wrote:Sz+1. Nevyn, have you seen an Sz+1 manifold?

Yes, I tested that when writing my last post to see if it really did produce a sphere and it didn't. It produces a C type shape that is slightly wider in the top than the bottom (but this could be flipped in various ways, suffice to say that one end is larger than the other). The way the BPhoton moves is interesting as it seems to whirl around the spin axis, wider at one end. I can look at that motion and see a little engine that takes charge in at the wider end and pushes it through as the BPhoton moves towards the inside of the spin path. Basically compressing the charge and gaining linear velocity from it. However, I think the point is moot since I don't believe that the axial spin can be added on top of existing end-over-end spins.

I'm not sure what you means by Z+1. Isn't the +1 the axial spin on top of Z? If you means a full spin set (A, X, Y, Z) and then add another X spin on top of that then it produces the basic shape as the previous Z spin, only now the hole is on the X axis (because we have a top level X spin). If I then add in Spin Set 3 with only an axial spin, it produces a mess. Still not a sphere but I could say more spherical.

Airman wrote:Miles said A is a sphere, double the radius of Sz. I believe him. It's around here somewhere.

Yes, Miles has stated something to that effect. I don't believe it, myself. An axial spin can not double the radius. Only an end-over-end spin can do that.

Nevyn, Thanks for many insights I would have missed on my own, my understanding has definitely grown.

I don't think I've made my point.

How do you get from Z to A?

I’m saying we start with end-over-end doubling of Sz to create Sz+1.

I guess I’m suggesting that because of the redundant X or Y spin, and large BPhoton vertical extents (thickness = 8r), Sz+1 is essentially a drifting BPhoton. Sz+1 becomes stable with the addition of the axial spin, thereby becoming an A.

(A,X,Y,Z,Z+1) becomes (A,X,Y,Z,A). note that A has double the radius of Z.

The problem with this possibility is the energy required for both end-over-end and axial spins applied to Sz+1. I'm hoping that's a wash..

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m saying we start with end-over-end doubling of Sz to create Sz+1.

If we have an existing Sz and we add an end-over-end spin to that then we get S(2)x (assuming the X axis for simplicity).

An axial spin can not double the radius. Axial means straight down the axis or center of the object so it can never double the radius.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I guess I’m suggesting that because of the redundant X or Y spin, and large BPhoton vertical extents (thickness = 8r), Sz+1 is essentially a drifting BPhoton. Sz+1 becomes stable with the addition of the axial spin, thereby becoming an A.

(A,X,Y,Z,Z+1) becomes (A,X,Y,Z,A). note that A has double the radius of Z.

You can't take an existing A, X, Y, Z spin set and then just add another Z spin that will have a radius of 8r (actually 64r since the inner Z is 8r). You can only double the radius, not triple or quadruple, in a single step. Any spin level added onto an existing spin set, no matter which dimension it is spinning around, will only double the radius of the previous spin level. We talk about X spins being 2r and Y 4r and Z 8r for simplicity but in reality, the actual dimension being rotated around is irrelevant as far as the radius is concerned (it is very important in other ways). The radius will always double for each spin level from the inside out. This is because a spin level is always an end-over-end spin of the previous level.

But S(2)x already is 16r and there is no way to add an axial spin to it without breaking the rules of stacked spins. Not because it is an X spin but because there is no way to add an axial spin to any dimension above the very first spin level. There is no where for the spin axis to go through the center of the existing spins that could produce a sphere and if we go through the central hole of the top spin level then we don't produce a sphere because we are just turning the torus around, not flipping it over. And even if we could somehow create an axial spin, it still doesn't produce a sphere because all of the motion is integrated.

Maybe I am missing something but I just can't see how any axial spin can be added above the first.

Maybe I am missing something but I just can't see how any axial spin can be added above the first.

S(2)x’s and S(2)y’s by themselves make lousy BPhotons. They have redundant x or y spins and the horizontal top level spin cannot maintain a stable horizontal axis. It Drifts. I believe that the additional x or y may add to the axial rotation of the S(2) torus. In any case, hit it with a tangential vertical collision and you end up with a very stable spinning A.

“Perfect spheres” also carry a lot of baggage. I don’t believe in perfect spheres, or their perfect axes, especially when we are talking about a BPhoton manifold within a spin set. The BPhoton must adjust its manifold to accommodate its new energy level.

As a new A, in the sequence A,Sx,Sy,Sz we are concerned with A's axial spin, not what internal spins created it.

S(2)x’s and S(2)y’s by themselves make lousy BPhotons. They have redundant x or y spins and the horizontal top level spin cannot maintain a stable horizontal axis. It Drifts. I believe that the additional x or y may add to the axial rotation of the S(2) torus. In any case, hit it with a tangential vertical collision and you end up with a very stable spinning A.

How is that “breaking the rules of stacked spins”?

S(n)x or S(n)y are not BPhotons. A BPhoton is the indivisible entity actually doing the moving that these spins provide. Maybe you meant just a photon?

I don't know what you mean by redundant x or y spins. A spin level can not be redundant. It either exists or it does not and if it does then it is affecting the motion of the BPhoton.

If a spin is a horizontal (which I assume means it's larger radii (of its torus shape) is on the horizontal) then its spin axis is vertical. The axis is always in a different dimension to the motion (assuming spin axis lines up with coord sys axis for simplicity).

If you hit that with a vertically moving particle, on the outside edge, it will not create an axial spin but another stacked spin level. If it could create an axial spin, then any level would be able to add an axial spin, not just a top level Z spin. That leaves us not knowing how a particle (such as electrons, protons, etc) could be built. There is no steady (A, X, Y, Z), (A, X, Y, Z) or, as I prefer, (A, X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z). It could be (A, X, A, Y, Z, A, X, A, Y, Z), etc. Any level could have an axial spin above it.

In previous posts in this thread, when I have said that something breaks the rules of stacked spins, I am usually referring to the requirement that the next spin level axis can not go through any existing spins or the area that they inhabit. An axial spin requires a spin axis that goes through the existing spins and that is not allowed. I had a brief moment where I thought that it might be able to go through the hole created in larger particles but that is on the wrong axis to create an axial spin.

LongtimeAirman wrote:As a new A, in the sequence A,Sx,Sy,Sz we are concerned with A's axial spin, not what internal spins created it.

It has become “indivisible”.

I wouldn't say it has become indivisible because we can always remove spins which could be seen as dividing it, in some way. What I meant by indivisible is a solid, rigid entity that can not be broken apart. That is the BPhoton. It is what is being spun. The thing that has all of the motion and energy.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I just want to plant a proper doubt in your certainty.

And I applaud the effort but it is not working (in this case). I did have my moment of doubt but it left as quick as it arrived. I'm not trying to be stubborn, I just don't see any way for an axial spin above the very first spin level or what it would accomplish even if it could occur. We just don't need them and have plenty of complexity with just X, Y and Z spins and the many spin sets that can be used. I would like to mention that the very fist axial spin is absolutely critical to every other spin level. It is the sole reason that more spins can be stacked on top but once it exists, there is just no way to have another.

First, a quote from Miles Mathis, NEW PAPER, added 5/19/16, Proof from the Mainstream of my Quantum Spin Equations. Trinity College provides us with a new experiment to analyze.

If you aren't a previous reader of mine, you should start with two shortish papers: elecpro.html and super.html. Those will prepare you for this paper nicely. In the second, you will discover how spins are stacked on particles, using simple gyroscopic rules. In the first, you will learn to apply simple math to these stacked spins, to discover their relative sizes. This math works for all particles: photons, electron, mesons, and baryons (protons and neutrons). As a matter of radius, each spin is a doubling of the spin inside it, but we also have a turn to track as well. In other words, each spin is orthogonal to spins next to it, again obeying simple rules.

Miles’ thinking doesn’t seem to have changed.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote:

LongtimeAirman wrote:S(2)x’s and S(2)y’s by themselves make lousy BPhotons. They have redundant x or y spins and the horizontal top level spin cannot maintain a stable horizontal axis. It Drifts. I believe that the additional x or y may add to the axial rotation of the S(2) torus. In any case, hit it with a tangential vertical collision and you end up with a very stable spinning A.

How is that “breaking the rules of stacked spins”?

S(n)x or S(n)y are not BPhotons. A BPhoton is the indivisible entity actually doing the moving that these spins provide. Maybe you meant just a photon?

Granted, only the BPhoton exists, it is the heart from which all higher particles are built. I guess I assume the top level must have some tangibility, some form as suggested by your simulation.

I am saying that A’s are axially spun-up S(n)x’s or S(n)y’s, and A’s are large BPhotons. The only difference is you can strip spins from A’s, and you cannot strip spins from the core BPhoton.

Nevyn wrote:I don't know what you mean by redundant x or y spins. A spin level can not be redundant. It either exists or it does not and if it does then it is affecting the motion of the BPhoton.

X,Y, and Z are a complete orthogonal set - each spin is independent from the other two. End-over-end spin doubling of Z repeats either X or Y axis spins, and poorly at that. The cycle of orthogonality is interrupted yet the radius is doubled. The only sustainable independent spin left is axial. I am suggesting that A axial spin is only applied to S(n)x’s or S(n)y’s.

Nevyn wrote:If a spin is a horizontal (which I assume means it's larger radii (of its torus shape) is on the horizontal) then its spin axis is vertical. The axis is always in a different dimension to the motion (assuming spin axis lines up with coord sys axis for simplicity).

I meant that the S(n)x, and S(n)y’s make lousy horizontal platforms (including horizontal axii). If I said they cannot maintain a fixed vertical axis – scoff - it wouldn’t have conveyed the wobbly nature I was attempting to convey. The thing is a raft looking for a reason to roll over. The same thinking shows it would make a good A.

Nevyn wrote:If you hit that with a vertically moving particle, on the outside edge, it will not create an axial spin but another stacked spin level.

Yes, it’s another stacked spin level. I contend it’s an A.

What is your definition of axial spin? It seems you believe there can be one axial spin - the very first spin of the BPhoton? I think every A has its own axial spin, independent of its BPhoton heart.

Nevyn wrote:If it could create an axial spin, then any level would be able to add an axial spin, not just a top level Z spin.

Strongly Disagree. It just seems true. If you put an axial spin on top of just X or Y, your resulting A-minuses would not be three dimensionally orthogonally stable - equally resistant to forces from all directions. They would precess gyroscopically.

They would be unable to build a new stable spin sets of X,Y, and Z on their own.

Nevyn wrote:That leaves us not knowing how a particle (such as electrons, protons, etc) could be built. There is no steady (A, X, Y, Z), (A, X, Y, Z) or, as I prefer, (A, X, Y, Z), (X, Y, Z). It could be (A, X, A, Y, Z, A, X, A, Y, Z), etc. Any level could have an axial spin above it.

Again, only completed orthogonal sets of X,Y,Z, along with S(n)x or S(n)y, can support A axial spins. None of the mixed pedigee you suggest could survive.

There IS a steady sequence, very much like a repetitive musical dance, not a random string.

In other words, each spin is orthogonal to spins next to it, again obeying simple rules.

Nevyn wrote:In previous posts in this thread, when I have said that something breaks the rules of stacked spins, I am usually referring to the requirement that the next spin level axis can not go through any existing spins or the area that they inhabit. An axial spin requires a spin axis that goes through the existing spins and that is not allowed.

There are no existing spins in the center. It is empty - the top level look down z-hole. The BPhoton is safe, elsewhere within the manifold. The center can therefore always accommodate a new spin without tangibly interfering with any subordinate “center”.

Since the new A axis starts horizontally, it does penetrate the Z manifold, yet it can NOT be said the new axis goes through the existing BPhoton. The rule (can not go through any existing spins or the area that they inhabit ) applies to the BPhoton - not the manifold. Your disqualification is invalid.

LongtimeAirman wrote:LongtimeAirman wrote:As a new A, in the sequence A,Sx,Sy,Sz we are concerned with A's axial spin, not what internal spins created it.

It has become “indivisible”.

I had a brief moment where I thought that it might be able to go through the hole created in larger particles but that is on the wrong axis to create an axial spin.

I wouldn't say it has become indivisible because we can always remove spins which could be seen as dividing it, in some way. What I meant by indivisible is a solid, rigid entity that can not be broken apart. That is the BPhoton. It is what is being spun. The thing that has all of the motion and energy.

I think of A as the highest level BPhoton.…

Nevyn wrote:I would like to mention that the very fist axial spin is absolutely critical to every other spin level. It is the sole reason that more spins can be stacked on top but once it exists, there is just no way to have another.

The BPhoton heart is still spinning. Along with all the independent spins above it..

I'll start by pointing out a few basic rules and assumptions about stacked spins and the nomenclature we are using here. This may cover stuff we already know but I want to be perfectly clear.

Nomenclature

A spin level is denoted by its spin axis dimension (the axis it is rotating around) such as X, Y or Z or its spin axis relative to what is being spun such as A for axial (axial meaning 'from the center'). If something is spinning about some dimension, then its motion is in the other 2.

A group of spin levels is a spin set and all spin levels in a spin set must be orthogonal to each other. There is also a requirement that spin sets must be orthogonal to each other as well since they are just more spin levels added on top.

A spin set is denoted by S(n) where n is the number of spin sets from the BPhoton with the very first spin set being 1, a spin set on top of that is 2, etc.

A spin level within a spin set is denoted by S(n)d where d is X, Y or Z and sometimes we will use A as well, even though I am arguing against it, we will need to use it to discuss alternatives.

There is only 1 real particle and we call it the BPhoton. This is an indivisible, rigid (truly rigid, meaning it can not deform in any way) body. To avoid confusion, it should be referred to as the BPhoton and not as a particle since the term particle has come to represent larger entities such as electrons and protons. Similarly, do not refer to something as a BPhoton if you are not referring to this central, real entity. If you have a BPhoton with any spin levels above the axial, then it is a photon or larger particle. I'm a bit unsure whether the axial spin should be part of the BPhoton or not but I will progress with it attached.

A coordinate system is a set of orthogonal dimensions with a common origin. The dimensions are X, Y and Z with X increasing to the right, Y increasing up and Z increasing out of the screen or towards the viewer. This can translate to wide (X), high (Y) and deep (Z) when referring to lengths.

Stacked Spins

The BPhoton can gain an axial spin level. That is because it does not have any existing spins so it is free to choose a spin axis anywhere it wants to and the central axis of the BPhoton is a good choice. I could probably go into how the axial spin axis is an expression of mass and I think that is a worthy point of discussion but will leave it for now.

Once the BPhoton has that axial spin, and it is spinning at full speed (tangential velocity of c), it is possible for the BPhoton to gain a new spin level by a collision with another entity. That collision must happen at 1 of 2 points on the BPhoton: the top or the bottom. The top and bottom of the BPhoton are where the axial spin axis enters/leaves the BPhoton. For example, if the axial spin as about the Y axis, then the top is at (0,r,0) and the bottom is at (0,-r,0) where r is the radius of the BPhoton. For simplicity we will make r=1.

The point of that collision becomes the location of the new spin axis which must be orthogonal to the axial spin axis since the collision has to be at the top or bottom so the incoming particle is moving in the other 2 dimensions. In our example, the incoming particle must be moving in the XZ plane. We will assume it is actually travelling parallel to the X or Z axis for simplicity. So if the incoming particle is travelling parallel to the Z axis then the new spin level will rotate about the X axis, giving us a new X spin level. This spin level is an end-over-end spin since the spin axis is on the edge of the BPhoton (that is, translated by r).

With S(1)X we have a toroidal shape that is higher and deeper than it is wide since its motion is in the YZ plane. It does not have a hole at its center because the edge of the BPhoton is always touching the S(1)X spin axis. We can not add an axial spin to this level becuase the axial spin axis would have to intersect the existing S(1)X axis and this is not allowed by the rules of stacked spins.

To form S(1)Y we need a collision with a particle travelling parallel to the X dimension but translated r away from it in the Z dimension. Note that we could create an S(1)Z if the incoming particle is travelling parallel to X but translated in the Y dimension. For simplicity we will assume Y comes after X but we know reality is more complicated.

So now we have S(1)Y and this produces a toroidal shape that is wider and deeper than it is high. This is what Airman has referred to as a horizontal toroid. This form does have a hole at its center but it is very small. So small that a BPhoton will not fit through it.

To add S(1)Z, we need a collision with a particle travelling parallel to the Y dimension but translated in X. This produces a toroidal shape that is wider and higher than it is deep. The central hole is a bit bigger, but not by much.

That gives us a complete S(1) spin set.

A Different View

Another way to analyze each spin level is by its mass. A toroidal shape has more mass in 2 dimensions than the other. That is because it takes up more volumn in those 2 dimensions than the other. In order to spin something with such a mass distribution, you have to collide with it parallel to its central axis (which is the other dimension). I touched on that above but thought it required a bit more clarity.

Let's look at an example. Suppose you have a donut sitting on your desk in front of you. That donut is a toroid and it is wider and deeper than it is high which corresponds to our S(1)Y level above. If you want to turn that donut into a sphere, you have to repeatedly flip it over. Picking it up and turning it around will not change the actual shape, only a flip will allow the shape to form a sphere. So we need to collide with the donut from above or below and on the edge of it (or at least close to the edge, away from the hole). But in doing so, we need a spin axis that is on the X or Z axis of the donut and goes through the center of it. That is not through the hole of the donut (in a clean sense, it must go through the body of the donut in order to reach the hole and then go through the other side of the body). But that is not allowed because the spin axis must go through the existing motion. There is no way to have an axial spin axis that goes through the hole of the donut without touching the body of it or if we did, then it would not produce a sphere or actually change the shape in any way.

I hope that clarifies my position and makes more sense than I have in previous posts. I will address some of your points later, when I have time to go through them but I thought going back to basics would help some-what. You really have to keep track of what dimensions the motion is in and which ones will produce new motions.

I will touch on some points Airman made but will address others later.

Airman wrote:X,Y, and Z are a complete orthogonal set - each spin is independent from the other two. End-over-end spin doubling of Z repeats either X or Y axis spins, and poorly at that. The cycle of orthogonality is interrupted yet the radius is doubled. The only sustainable independent spin left is axial. I am suggesting that A axial spin is only applied to S(n)x’s or S(n)y’s.

I don't understand what you mean by poorly. What makes them poor spins? They are no different than any other spin level.

The cycle of orthogonality is not interrupted but progress all the way up the chain. All spin sets are orthogonal to the top level spin of the previous spin set and this makes all spin sets orthogonal to each other. There is only 1 coordinate system for all spin levels and spin sets.

Why can an axial spin be applied to X or Y but not Z. What makes Z poorer than X or Y? How does the axial spin axis avoid going through the inner motion?

What is your definition of axial spin? It seems you believe there can be one axial spin - the very first spin of the BPhoton? I think every A has its own axial spin, independent of its BPhoton heart.

An axial spin is not a stacked spin because a stacked spin is an end-over-end motion. How can the axial spin double the radius? Axial means characterized by or forming an axis, which is a bit loose for our purposes here. Axial rotation is defined as rotary motion of an object around its own axis, which is a bit more useful to us. When Miles talks of an axial spin he is referring to the central axis of that which is being spun. That axis must go through the very center of whatever it is spinning. An axial spin of a sphere does not change the shape of that sphere and it does not take up any more volume than it did without the axial spin. Therefore, an axial spin level can not double the radius, it can only fill out the volume (of a torus).

I'm not sure why you are talking about horizontal platforms. There is no horizontal in space. Horizontal is relative to some other thing (the actual definition is parallel to the horizon) so being horizontal or vertical or anywhere in between (what would be the term for the Z axis?) is irrelevant and certainly does not produce poor spins. Are you trying to import gravity? That is the only thing that could provide some context for horizontal if we define gravity as acting vertically, but I don't think that is what you are trying to do.

Same thing for stability. What makes a particular spin level unstable? There is no requirement that the particle be equally resistant to forces in all dimensions. The more spin levels added the more equal they would become but there would always be some difference. The toroid shape tells us that.

Airman wrote:There are no existing spins in the center. It is empty - the top level look down z-hole. The BPhoton is safe, elsewhere within the manifold. The center can therefore always accommodate a new spin without tangibly interfering with any subordinate “center”.

Since the new A axis starts horizontally, it does penetrate the Z manifold, yet it can NOT be said the new axis goes through the existing BPhoton. The rule (can not go through any existing spins or the area that they inhabit ) applies to the BPhoton - not the manifold. Your disqualification is invalid.

As I mentioned above and in previous posts, in order to take a toroidal shape and turn it into a spherical shape, you have to have a spin axis that goes through the body of the toroid. It can not go directly through the hole as that will not produce a sphere. Therefore, an axial spin can not be added at all since it requires the axis to go through the existing motion which is not allowed. My disqualification is re-asserted.

The rules of stacked spins do not only apply to the BPhoton. They apply to whatever is being spun. If you have existing spin levels, then the rules are applied to them.

Ok, so I think I ended up addressing most of your points. I'll have a look over it again later in case I missed something.

Many of my comments display a profound ignorance of physics. I’m learning, though I’m hard-pressed to prove it to you.

How do we get from Z to A? A is twice the radius of Z; it is therefore only logical to begin with an end-over-end spin radius doubling of Z.

Agreed, our top level spin can only be in one axis. You cannot superimpose two top level spins such as an A spin and an X,Y or Z without causing illegal deformation of the A or BPhoton.

Sorry, I cannot accept the impossibility of A spins above the BPhoton. My certainty is that there is something about S(n)ZX or S(n)ZY that cause them to transform into A's. In any case, we cannot say we have done due diligence until we have examined this point.

The units are based on a spherical A(n). Note that each subsequent surface area is the square of the radius. A is fixed in size, yet the manifold is greatly increased. A is travelling at light speed but it has a much greater path length.

Yes, an A spin on top of S(n)ZX or S(n)ZY would be a horizontal axis piercing a vertically oriented top level spin. I believe the look-down z-hole prevents the new A axis from piercing the core BPhoton. I believe the difference is significant, given the small ground I’m on anyway. The greatly expanded spin set (increased path length and complexity) and reduced gyroscopic stability suggest to me that we aren’t dealing with the same existing motion constraints or deformation forces that prevents adding A and X,Y or Z spins together.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Many of my comments display a profound ignorance of physics. I’m learning, though I’m hard-pressed to prove it to you.

We all have a lot to learn and I've noticed you trying to figure things out and your knowledge growing. That is all anyone can ask for. Don't sweat on it, just keep trying to learn.

LongtimeAirman wrote:How do we get from Z to A? A is twice the radius of Z; it is therefore only logical to begin with an end-over-end spin radius doubling of Z.

This is the crux of the issue right here. How can A be twice the radius of Z? What is your definition of axial rotation? If we take Z and give it an end-over-end spin, which doubles the radius, how can that be considered an axial spin? What is the difference between an X, Y or Z spin and an A spin? There must be some difference but you are explaining them as the same but saying they are different. I just don't understand how that can be resolved.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Sorry, I cannot accept the impossibility of A spins above the BPhoton. My certainty is that there is something about S(n)ZX or S(n)ZY that cause them to transform into A's. In any case, we cannot say we have done due diligence until we have examined this point.

The only A where radius = 1 is the very first spin level. If we assume that A levels are allowed in higher spin sets then the radius of each A will be the radius of the Z spin below it but expanded out into a full sphere. Actually, it's not that simple but we will go with it for now.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The units are based on a spherical A(n). Note that each subsequent surface area is the square of the radius. A is fixed in size, yet the manifold is greatly increased. A is travelling at light speed but it has a much greater path length.

A is not fixed in size (unless you agree with me that only the first spin level can be an A ), it is relative to the previous spin level and shares that radius. The only way to create a longer path length is to increase the radius because that radius increase causes the circumference to be greater which is what we measure the velocity against. That is, Miles has redefined angular velocity to be the velocity as traveled on the circumference (see his Angular Velocity and Momentum paper).

LongtimeAirman wrote:Yes, an A spin on top of S(n)ZX or S(n)ZY would be a horizontal axis piercing a vertically oriented top level spin. I believe the look-down z-hole prevents the new A axis from piercing the core BPhoton. I believe the difference is significant, given the small ground I’m on anyway. The greatly expanded spin set (increased path length and complexity) and reduced gyroscopic stability suggest to me that we aren’t dealing with the same existing motion constraints or deformation forces that prevents adding A and X,Y or Z spins together.

I don't understand where this reduced gyroscopic stability is coming from. Electrons and protons are extremely stable and they contain lots and lots of spin levels inside of them. There are a whole range of photons that are stable and they have from 1 to lots of spin levels inside them. I don't see any instability until we get above the proton. At that point, I would suggest that gravity is the cause of any instability.

Let's try this from a different perspective. I want you to see that the spin axis required to turn a torus into a sphere does not go directly through the central hole but must pass through the body of the torus.

Have you ever taken a coin and sat it on its edge on a table and then flicked it so that it spins? That spin causes the coin to create a sphere. That coin is a torus (of sorts) and is the exact same concept as with our stacked spins. Take out a coin and spin it on a table. Look at the part of the coin that is not changing location (dismiss the way the coin will move around the table and only think of the spinning motion of the coin itself). That line going from the top of the coin straight down and out the bottom of it (where it meets the table) is the spin axis. It is the part that only rotates and does not move. In contrast, the outer edge of the coin on the left or right is moving the most. Now imagine a hole in the middle of the coin. See how the rotational axis does not go directly through the hole (which would not actually touch the coin) but has to go through the body of the coin? Well, the body of the coin represents our inner spin motion and the rotational axis of the next spin level can not touch it. So there is no way to create a axial spin without breaking the rules of gyroscopic motion.

I have made some minor updates to SpinSim so that you can specify URL parameters to set some of the settings. This allows you to setup a particular spin, turning spin sets and levels on/off as you desire. You can also specify a linear velocity as a percentage of c, negative values will move in the opposite direction. There isn't much point having a linear velocity without being able to turn on the markers, so you can do that too. You can even specify the number of milliseconds that you want it to record and after that, it will stop creating markers and will turn off the linear velocity (otherwise the camera soon moves past the markers and you can't see them anymore).

I am still working on it, but here is the list of parameters:

Parameter

Type

Values

Example

particle

string

sphere, cube

cube

spin_rate

float

0.001

axial_spin_axis

char

x, y, z

x

set1

boolean

0, 1, t, f, y, n, on, off, true, false, yes, no

on

set1_levels

array of 4 booleans

b,b,b,b

t,f,f,f

set2_levels

array of 4 booleans

b,b,b,b

t,f,f,f

set3_levels

array of 4 booleans

b,b,b,b

t,f,f,f

velocity

float

10

marker

string

box, color box, sphere, line segments, line groups

line segments

rec

boolean

0, 1, t, f, y, n, on, off, true, false, yes, no

y

for

integer

10000

There are some other parameters that let you delve deeper into the spin level settings to set initial rotation and spin direction but these are still experimental. The above parameters allow most things to be accomplished.

Back in May, Nevyn said: How can A be twice the radius of Z? What is your definition of axial rotation? If we take Z and give it an end-over-end spin, which doubles the radius, how can that be considered an axial spin? What is the difference between an X, Y or Z spin and an A spin? There must be some difference but you are explaining them as the same but saying they are different. I just don't understand how that can be resolved.

Sorry I missed that discussion. It's obvious to me that MM erred when he said that there is more than one A-spin-level. There obviously are more than one x, y, and z-spin-levels, but there can only be one A-spin-level, the initial axial spin of the heretofore non-spinning photon. So there is no A2. There is only A, then X1, Y1, Z1, X2, Y2, Z2, etc. See? Si?

Agreed, that has been my position for years but I provide it in my apps because others don't agree. More importantly, Miles seems to think that it is possible and since I am implementing his work, I think I should do it his way while also providing ways to disable it so that we can compare the results of each method.